only support if it was a mistake, if not leave it be
hate to be that person but it's very simple
if you don't like it, don't use it
hate to be that person but it's very simple
if you don't like it, don't use it
Suggestions
Make Flight Rising better by sharing your ideas!
TOPIC | Please Fix Lionfish on Tundras!
only support if it was a mistake, if not leave it be
hate to be that person but it's very simple
if you don't like it, don't use it
hate to be that person but it's very simple
if you don't like it, don't use it
I could support a gradient being added as a sort of compromise, like what is seen on the hair and feathers of other breeds added to tundras after more experimenting in the scrying workshop, but not patterning (unless it was somehow an art error.)
I've not seen any commentary on how coatl's chest feathers are also unpatterned but one thing it does have is a belly gradient. Adding a bit of a gradient to the tundra's untouched coat in a couple places could help alleviate the basic look so many dislike while still leaving it largely uncluttered for the intent of the gene.
(also I wonder if there is an art bug on coatls, see how the male has a simple gradient on his fluff but females have full on underbelly color? One or the other was probably intended, I'm guessing the males since it looks more refined.)
[img]http://flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=28&bodygene=25&breed=12&element=1&eyetype=0&gender=0&tert=148&tertgene=0&winggene=24&wings=28&auth=6f91b9d8b0d5860183b337d46e136b5a0bab52f1&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]http://flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=28&bodygene=25&breed=12&element=1&eyetype=0&gender=1&tert=148&tertgene=0&winggene=24&wings=28&auth=46433eeaf4173967752de51b28ea0eb2ba2c2fb1&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
I could support a gradient being added as a sort of compromise, like what is seen on the hair and feathers of other breeds added to tundras after more experimenting in the scrying workshop, but not patterning (unless it was somehow an art error.)
I've not seen any commentary on how coatl's chest feathers are also unpatterned but one thing it does have is a belly gradient. Adding a bit of a gradient to the tundra's untouched coat in a couple places could help alleviate the basic look so many dislike while still leaving it largely uncluttered for the intent of the gene.
(also I wonder if there is an art bug on coatls, see how the male has a simple gradient on his fluff but females have full on underbelly color? One or the other was probably intended, I'm guessing the males since it looks more refined.)
I've not seen any commentary on how coatl's chest feathers are also unpatterned but one thing it does have is a belly gradient. Adding a bit of a gradient to the tundra's untouched coat in a couple places could help alleviate the basic look so many dislike while still leaving it largely uncluttered for the intent of the gene.
(also I wonder if there is an art bug on coatls, see how the male has a simple gradient on his fluff but females have full on underbelly color? One or the other was probably intended, I'm guessing the males since it looks more refined.)
[quote name="Twizz" date="2018-10-22 01:02:27" ]
Except it's entirely unclear if this is an error or not? In fact, I'd wager that it's more evidence to suggest it was an intentional design choice as the "lack of coverage" is consistent between both male and female Tundras. If it was a mistake, I'd imagine different sections would be missing color and/or there'd be sections of gradient or pattern inconsistent between them, but there's not.
Tundra's are currently the only breed with canonical layers of fur and additionally they've always been something of an odd duck when it comes to basic color expression. It's part of what makes people either love them or hate them.
I don't see what's so unbelievable about a gene's pattern expressing itself differently across various layers of fur. This happens in nature.
[/quote]
Is that why the manes on male tundras, the ones that should be showing Noxtide patterning, are also blank?
[img]http://flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=116&bodygene=25&breed=6&element=8&eyetype=3&gender=0&tert=117&tertgene=0&winggene=24&wings=152&auth=cb53abf865bfa3c880090d5d7a29a2f41f2c1be8&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]http://flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=116&bodygene=25&breed=6&element=8&eyetype=3&gender=0&tert=117&tertgene=0&winggene=0&wings=152&auth=c86c7dd9585d9788048034f655e8e4708927ab1c&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
Safari's pretty vague too, but at least it shows in some fashion.
[img]http://flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=116&bodygene=25&breed=6&element=8&eyetype=3&gender=0&tert=117&tertgene=0&winggene=18&wings=152&auth=298d75979956dde678805cf7af2ea2df7a981d0f&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]http://flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=116&bodygene=25&breed=6&element=8&eyetype=3&gender=0&tert=117&tertgene=0&winggene=0&wings=152&auth=c86c7dd9585d9788048034f655e8e4708927ab1c&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
It looks like the fluff/mane was just entirely forgotten somehow.
Though the fastest way to end all of this is for someone on the team to say whether it's intentional or not. I think it's odd that they haven't even said anything, when this is clearly a confusion point, but did hop on to point out that the eyes aren't inheritable.
Twizz wrote on 2018-10-22 01:02:27:
Except it's entirely unclear if this is an error or not? In fact, I'd wager that it's more evidence to suggest it was an intentional design choice as the "lack of coverage" is consistent between both male and female Tundras. If it was a mistake, I'd imagine different sections would be missing color and/or there'd be sections of gradient or pattern inconsistent between them, but there's not.
Tundra's are currently the only breed with canonical layers of fur and additionally they've always been something of an odd duck when it comes to basic color expression. It's part of what makes people either love them or hate them.
I don't see what's so unbelievable about a gene's pattern expressing itself differently across various layers of fur. This happens in nature.
Tundra's are currently the only breed with canonical layers of fur and additionally they've always been something of an odd duck when it comes to basic color expression. It's part of what makes people either love them or hate them.
I don't see what's so unbelievable about a gene's pattern expressing itself differently across various layers of fur. This happens in nature.
Is that why the manes on male tundras, the ones that should be showing Noxtide patterning, are also blank?
Safari's pretty vague too, but at least it shows in some fashion.
It looks like the fluff/mane was just entirely forgotten somehow.
Though the fastest way to end all of this is for someone on the team to say whether it's intentional or not. I think it's odd that they haven't even said anything, when this is clearly a confusion point, but did hop on to point out that the eyes aren't inheritable.
|
 [/center] |
I honestly just want to know if this is considered a mistake or not. I wish the staff would comment on it. I have a couple Tundras I'd consider this for, but I'm not doing anything until I know if the gene is going to change. Just... seriously, a statement on this from the staff would be really helpful.
I honestly just want to know if this is considered a mistake or not. I wish the staff would comment on it. I have a couple Tundras I'd consider this for, but I'm not doing anything until I know if the gene is going to change. Just... seriously, a statement on this from the staff would be really helpful.
I like it the way it is. It looks like they are wearing cute fur coats! But to each their own preferences, I am certainly not going to tell anyone who doesn't like it that they're wrong to feel that way :)
I like it the way it is. It looks like they are wearing cute fur coats! But to each their own preferences, I am certainly not going to tell anyone who doesn't like it that they're wrong to feel that way :)
[quote name="Amut" date="2018-10-22 08:08:11" ]
Is that why the manes on male tundras, the ones that should be showing Noxtide patterning, are also blank?
...
It looks like the fluff/mane was just entirely forgotten somehow.
Though the fastest way to end all of this is for someone on the team to say whether it's intentional or not. I think it's odd that they haven't even said anything, when this is clearly a confusion point, but did hop on to point out that the eyes aren't inheritable.
[/quote]
I believe the mane being left untouched was also intentional. There are other secondary genes that do not affect that mane area of tundras (male tundras in particular where it's more prominent). Daub, I believe, is one of them, as well as Eyespots and Seraph.
I firmly believe we should have variety in Secondary genes and what parts of the "secondary areas" they affect. I'm personally ecstatic to have a gene that makes the wings on Tundras look AMAZING and colorful but doesn't turn the mane section a similar pattern of color as seen in genes like Toxin, Trail, or Morph.
People are always asking for variety in genes. Sometimes that entails genes not covering dragons in the same ways as other genes or expressing the same way other genes do. However that diversity is incredibly important, otherwise genes will all start to look very similar to each other (people have already been complaining about that too).
If you don't like the coverage a gene gives on a dragon, then simply do not use it. No one is under any obligation to purchase a gene they don't like.
If and only IF there is a mistake will I support adjusting the coverage or editing these genes in any way. For example, the disparity in coverage on coatls for Noxtide, that does appear to be a mistake as the coverage isn't consistent across the two breeds. Lionfish and Noxtide function just fine as a genes otherwise.
Editing the appearance of genes based on a section of the FR population's opinion is playing a game of "trying to please everybody" that ultimately cannot be won. It is much better if the FR artists present genes as they have envisioned them. The player base can then decide whether to use them or not based on their own personal preferences.
Amut wrote on 2018-10-22 08:08:11:
Is that why the manes on male tundras, the ones that should be showing Noxtide patterning, are also blank?
...
It looks like the fluff/mane was just entirely forgotten somehow.
Though the fastest way to end all of this is for someone on the team to say whether it's intentional or not. I think it's odd that they haven't even said anything, when this is clearly a confusion point, but did hop on to point out that the eyes aren't inheritable.
I believe the mane being left untouched was also intentional. There are other secondary genes that do not affect that mane area of tundras (male tundras in particular where it's more prominent). Daub, I believe, is one of them, as well as Eyespots and Seraph.
I firmly believe we should have variety in Secondary genes and what parts of the "secondary areas" they affect. I'm personally ecstatic to have a gene that makes the wings on Tundras look AMAZING and colorful but doesn't turn the mane section a similar pattern of color as seen in genes like Toxin, Trail, or Morph.
People are always asking for variety in genes. Sometimes that entails genes not covering dragons in the same ways as other genes or expressing the same way other genes do. However that diversity is incredibly important, otherwise genes will all start to look very similar to each other (people have already been complaining about that too).
If you don't like the coverage a gene gives on a dragon, then simply do not use it. No one is under any obligation to purchase a gene they don't like.
If and only IF there is a mistake will I support adjusting the coverage or editing these genes in any way. For example, the disparity in coverage on coatls for Noxtide, that does appear to be a mistake as the coverage isn't consistent across the two breeds. Lionfish and Noxtide function just fine as a genes otherwise.
Editing the appearance of genes based on a section of the FR population's opinion is playing a game of "trying to please everybody" that ultimately cannot be won. It is much better if the FR artists present genes as they have envisioned them. The player base can then decide whether to use them or not based on their own personal preferences.
No support for changing genes after they where released aside from mistakes, and I don't think this is a mistake. Personally I think it's nice to have something that doesn't effect the fur. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, but some people do like it and have already applied it to their tundras.
No support for changing genes after they where released aside from mistakes, and I don't think this is a mistake. Personally I think it's nice to have something that doesn't effect the fur. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, but some people do like it and have already applied it to their tundras.
I don't think this is a mistake - the fur lacks patterning on males, females, AND hatchlings - so no support, unless they somehow forgot to design the same region on all three poses of one breed in particular (that already has a history of unique gene expression). I would like to think this was intentional and not a massive coincidental screw-up that defies the odds.
I don't think this is a mistake - the fur lacks patterning on males, females, AND hatchlings - so no support, unless they somehow forgot to design the same region on all three poses of one breed in particular (that already has a history of unique gene expression). I would like to think this was intentional and not a massive coincidental screw-up that defies the odds.
No support, because it's actually one of the ONLY genes that allows for what looks like a rather nice balance when it comes to negative space. I also say no support because it honestly looks intentional, based on the evidence some folks have put out.
If anybody cares, I want to give this boy as an example. I love his Basic Primary look, but it makes it inconvenient when one of his pups hatches from an egg with gorgeous colors, but a Basic Primary. Putting Lionfish gives the following:
[center][url=http://flightrising.com/main.php?dragon=2611981]
[img]http://flightrising.com/rendern/350/26120/2611981_350.png[/img]
[/url]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/cMwwFq4.png[/img][/center]
With his apparel on, it adds some pattern on the legs, but otherwise is a gene which can be passed onto his babes so that I don't have to go through the whole effort of giving them Primary genes. This is just one perspective regarding the issue, but, so far, I haven't seen anybody else bring it up.
Sometimes, having a good balance of the basics with some snazz makes for a pretty nice combination/look. :-)
No support, because it's actually one of the ONLY genes that allows for what looks like a rather nice balance when it comes to negative space. I also say no support because it honestly looks intentional, based on the evidence some folks have put out.
If anybody cares, I want to give this boy as an example. I love his Basic Primary look, but it makes it inconvenient when one of his pups hatches from an egg with gorgeous colors, but a Basic Primary. Putting Lionfish gives the following:
With his apparel on, it adds some pattern on the legs, but otherwise is a gene which can be passed onto his babes so that I don't have to go through the whole effort of giving them Primary genes. This is just one perspective regarding the issue, but, so far, I haven't seen anybody else bring it up.
Sometimes, having a good balance of the basics with some snazz makes for a pretty nice combination/look. :-)
If anybody cares, I want to give this boy as an example. I love his Basic Primary look, but it makes it inconvenient when one of his pups hatches from an egg with gorgeous colors, but a Basic Primary. Putting Lionfish gives the following:
With his apparel on, it adds some pattern on the legs, but otherwise is a gene which can be passed onto his babes so that I don't have to go through the whole effort of giving them Primary genes. This is just one perspective regarding the issue, but, so far, I haven't seen anybody else bring it up.
Sometimes, having a good balance of the basics with some snazz makes for a pretty nice combination/look. :-)
